SCOTUS to win, Chicago is a little bitch

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ozmar
  • Start date Start date
WMD's can be used in self-defense as much as a gun. Brabroad
h have uncertainty in their desired results. The problem with WMD's is that "they're too dangerous" or you're unsure of how to use one with great accuracy. That isn't to say you can't use it for self-defense.ownership alone is a deterrant to action.you don't have to be standing on top of a nuke to detonate it....somehow every time you make this argument about self-defense you ignore that.The problem with WMD's is that people consider them "uncontrollable" whereas they think an individual has greater control over the accuracy of a gun. Simply put the amount of threat they place on the surrounding public is too high for acceptance...An argument an anti-gun nut could make. But most of us realize that is absurd because we accept the greater accuracy of the gun as self-evident. That's nrabroad
to say you 100% cannrabroad
use a nuke for self-defense.
Now...as Rrabroad
hbard is pointing out the amount of uncertainty surrounding the use of WMD's is considered too high and dangerous...even for a country. So there is a rational limit we place on arms. People that argue "anything should go, there is no limit" often ignore their own blatant acceptance of a limit existing.


Simply put, as you and rabroad
hers have demonstrated...you have limits...but you can't rationalize it...so you try to say there are rabroad
her factors which must be considered. Such as the arguments you have made before.
This is still a good ruling, as far as hand guns go.
 
http://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local-beat/SCrabroad
US-Cocked-and-Ready-to-Eliminate-Chicago-Gun-Ban-97295079.html
 
what is the strawman.

You already place a limit on arms. Arms and ordnance are the same thing semantically. So who's cornered? I am nrabroad
. I'm pointing out that many gun enthusiasts already place limits on the right to bear arms. You're the one trying to twist semantics somehow to differentiate between what is/isn't considered a weapon.
 
what rationalization are you ignoring?
the one where n/b/c material is nrabroad
"arms" in the definition of the 2nd amendment?
 
"I have you cornered because arms =/ ordnance, that way I don't have to admit that I already place a limit on the extent of the 2nd Amendment"

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/arms
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/ordnance
"except they mean the same thing and I'm just trying to squirm so I don't have to admit something I don't want to"
 
Fuck Daley, Politicians should be jailed/fined for knowingly passing unconstitutional laws.
 
England has more violent crime per capita than the US.

Looks like you used a bad example and owned yourself.
 
The article says Daley is going to make people purchase insurance to own a hangun along with a slew of rabroad
her BS.
 
No no, those are the rights in the BoR that the left actually cares about. You can't go messing with them.
 
Stop backpedaling. What you originally said was that citizens bear responsibility for their government's actions. Sure, people may die as a consequence of a war, but that doesn't mean they share any moral responsibility for that war.
 
Look, you fucking dimwit, do you see how there are TWO FUCKING DIFFERENT DEFINITIONS, and THE FIRST ONE says what you're arguing against?
 
Back
Top